/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>660290

Needs to be excommunicated then.

>Met. Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual "Marriage"

No, he doesn't. The title of this article is a flat out lie at worst, misleading at best. I read the entire thing and Met. Kallistos didn't even mention homosexual marriage once.

This is probably the "defensive and reactive" stance he's talking about. He doesn't even condone sodomy:

"I am not suggesting here that we should bluntly set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching, but we do need to enquire more rigorously into the reasons that lie behind it."

-HIS WORDS

Whoever wrote this piece of trash needs to repent immediately.

Which one of you guys wrote this

>>660296

Yes, you are right that the article is somewhat misleading compared to what was actually said, yet I still find Bishop Ware's comments to be troubling. Just for example:

>Why do we put so great an emphasis upon genital sex? Why do we seek to enquire what adult persons of the same sex are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms? Trying to gaze through the keyhole is never a dignified posture. What harm are they doing to others? (“Ah!” it will be said, “they are doing harm to themselves.”) I am not suggesting here that we should bluntly set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching, but we do need to enquire more rigorously into the reasons that lie behind it.

So he gives some plausible deniability by saying that we shouldn't "bluntly set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching," but exactly do we need to inquire about. Why do we need to enquure further into this subject beyond what has been already written so many times before? Why does he call the Church's concern whether a professed homosexual is engaging in sodomy prior to administering absolution and communion "undignified?"

>In the words of Brandon Gallaher, “To ascertain the truth we must experiment.”

This is a naive attitude at best, and atouses suspicion whether the end goal of such "experimentation" is not in fact to inject new teachings that are contrary to established doctrine.

Adding to the problem of the content of his foreward is the context of the publication. You do not have to look hard at the main content to ascertain that this is not exactly a solidly Orthodox publication.

https://www.wheeljournal.com/current

So, yes, Bishop Ware does not outright say that the Church should have homosexual marriages, but he asks a lot of questions. Why is the Church so harsh toward the LGBTQ? Why does the Church treat a "homosexual committed to a stable and loving relationship" more harshly than repentant homosexuals by denying them absolution and communion? These are questions that we need to discuss and discuss and discuss… even though the answers to these questions are settled. And further he chooses to endorse this magazine, where it looks like the other authors go further than he does.

>The Wheel was founded three years ago with the goal of articulating the gospel in the contemporary world in a way that would move beyond current polarizations in the Orthodox Church. In view of this mission, the journal initially avoided focusing on the highly charged topic of humans’ existence as sexed and sexual beings. Yet a question of such intense public interest cannot be ignored for long. Furthermore, this is not a topic alien to the Orthodox faithful: a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, for example, found that Orthodox Christians in the United States are not only broadly tolerant of homosexuality but also—despite some clerical pronouncements to the contrary—actually support same-sex marriage rights at a higher rate than the general public.1 So last year, The Wheel accepted Father Andrew Louth’s proposal for an issue that would refocus the conversation on gender, sexuality, and sex within the broader context of theological anthropology.

>…

>In working with Father Louth on this project, we committed ourselves to listening as much as speaking—that is, to drawing in a variety of voices which represent the spectrum of opinions within the Orthodox Church on these controversial topics. Constructing a genuine dialogue proved to be no easy task. Many of us have become comfortable speaking only into our own echo chambers and, regrettably, some worthy potential contributors declined our invitation to participate. But the result is a nuanced issue that raises more questions than it answers. The editorial board thanks Father Andrew Louth for orchestrating this complex and challenging conversation.

>>660316

>enquire more rigorously into the reasons that lie behind it

>What harm are they doing to others?

>To ascertain the truth we must experiment

Holy shit it's like hearing Jesuits and modernists during CV II, don't fell into the trap.

Don't give them even an inch to "enquire more rigorously", they'll create all sorts of misinterpretation, deconstruct every doctrine and cause chaos to the point no one is sure of the true teaching anymore.

It's the same deconstructivist marxist tactic used in academia. Don't even let them speak, they are bringing the plague.

>>660350

Just makes me thankful we are not our own patriarchate

>>660350

Unfortunately this is true, some of the new converts just can't accept Orthodoxy as is is and will try to modify it. The good thing is that the clergy don't hold any real power in the church.

>>660316

Agreed. He would come out as pro sodomite "marriage" if he thought he could get away with it. He'll go full Puhalo one day no doubt.

And he's English; imagine my surprise. What is wrong with that country?

>>660377

Baptisms from pro-LGBT churches aren't considered valid even by economy and put in the same category as Mormon baptisms. I'd say that's harsh enough.

>>660376

Not even muslim are safe, no matter how much propaganda they throw at us saying they are the answer to western degeneracy.

Also in less that 70 years see what happened to western buddhism, it's pitiful. Not even the worst cucked christian churches are so bad as western buddhists.

>>660384

I don't remember who said it, but I remember a mystic saying that even demons are disgusted by fags.

It wouldn't be the first time that Kallistos Ware has said something heretical. He has a reputation for being liberal.

>>660405

Which I find strange because his books are Orthodox to an O.

he is also a universalist:

http://www.clarion-journal.com/files/dare-we-hope-for-the-salvation-of-all-1.pdf

>>660415

Not really an uncommon view in Orthodoxy, to be honest. In all fairness, most of those who believe in universal reconciliation still remain pretty orthodox in other areas. Unlike in western christian denominations, universalism doesn't lead to interfaith services and meditation and "all faiths are the same" type thinking.

>>660415

And a Nestorian. It's really a shame that he hasn't been defrocked yet.

>>660412

They are not, they seem to be to new converts but people who know more about theology realise they are wrong on many points as well in their general tone

>>660423

What points? Because you described be exactly, I am new to the faith.

>>660423

What exactly is "right" in Orthodox theology, though? Aside from "mere Christianity" kind of things, there isn't really overwhelming unanimity in Orthodoxy.

>>660433

Stuff like that he uses the word panentheism to describe a position applicable to Orthodoxy, which when you realize that panentheism means whatever you want it too isn't that important. The main thing though is that he isn' incredibly rude in how he veiws others, which buttblasts hyperdoxy converts/reverts who are still mad at everyone else

>>660435

Are you Orthodox?

>>660433

i'd have to re-read it to go over everything, but one glaring example is how he says the filoque is just a grammatical problem. Tbh from what i remember he doesn't really say very much it is all very flowery and anglo. Read Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Michael Pomazansky instead, it is far more informative and in line with Orthodox tradition.

>>660437

Kind of. Oriental.

>>660439

What do you mean "just a grammatical problem?" From memory, his book The Orthodox Church devotes decent space to the filioque and his position is that to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is to give properties of the Father to the Son and misunderstand what distinguishes them. He may also point out that it depends on what you mean by "and the Son", but he in no way makes the filioque out to be just a matter of grammar.

>>660440

ok, basically in Orthodoxy there are things that are subject to theological opinion and there are thing which are not. Some theological opinions while being acceptable are not what i would call representative of Orthodox tradition. And not everything which is dogma is in an ecumenical council. An example would be the essence energy distinction of palamas, it is not a part of an ecumenical council but is universally accepted by the Church.

http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/2doctrine.htm

>>660443

He does in the Orthodox way which is his more recent book i belive

>>660444

That's basically what I meant. In doing an overview of Orthodoxy, I can see how Ware might not show what is representative of Orthodox tradition, but there is also a lot of room for different beliefs. I would consider Universal reconciliation, for example, to be an acceptable belief to hold. Although, I wouldn't consider it to be acceptable as a teaching of the church or as being "representative" of the church.

I don't know. Copts are still mostly literal creationists, so we don't really have a huge problem in the church with liberalism.

>>660448

>I would consider Universal reconciliation, for example, to be an acceptable belief to hold

Judas is undoubtedly hell bound as are many others. It's pretty straightforward and I'm pretty sure we accept that evidently in some of our hymns

>>660449

Try finding one with apostolic succession

>>660448

The 5th ecumenical council condemns univeralism lad. It isn't an acceptable veiw for Orthodox to hold, although i know may incorrectly hold it.

>>660316

Damn. It's frustrating to see someone so prolific in attracting converts to the church give a shaky position on something so important.

>>660449

>Old Believers

They split for reasons more autistic than the calendarists. At least the calendarists had an excuse to split due to the encroachment of modernism.

>>660462

You sound like someone who thinks it is June 12th

>>660447

What's problematic about this? This is pretty correct.

>>660466

You sound like someone who hasn't read about the old believers.

>someone who thinks it is June 12th

Nice meme, but supporting the old calendar doesn't mean you schism from the Church. My parish is old calendar, and it isn't uncommon to find old calendar parishes in canonical jurisdictions. Something you should know unless you are an orthoprot.

>>660478

>calls me orthoprot

>has no idea were I stand on any issues other than calendar

try again

>>660316

remove modernists. this is the cancer that killed catholicism.

>In 2018, Ware has been observed for having fallen away from Orthodox teaching and the Orthodox Church in a fundamental way, going against the very foundations of the Holy Sacraments and Holy Tradition of the Church.[1]

lol'd. based wikipedia

also you guys do know the difference between OLD BELIEVERS and those on the OLD (true) CALENDAR right? larpers

just putting it out there: if you're on the new calender, you can't call anyone an orthoprot. i'm sorry, but you are the larper

>>660485

There's only one way to tell if your True Orthodox™, how do you feel about the hagiographies associates with Basil The New

>>660488

>>660489

cry more

>>660490

enlighten me, what are the fruits of the new calendar and modernism?

>>660490

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zervakos_calendar.aspx

>>660498

i'm embarrassed for you

>>660504

nah i'd rather be on the same page as mount athos and the rest of the real orthodox world. also, chasys draw ies is free and works better than paint for next time you want to troll

>>660510

>troll

>>reddit.com

This obsession with a Greek peninsula and former Soviet territories too will pass

>>660512

you mean

>>>/reddit/

i admire your dedication. are you doubling down because you know your on the papal calendar?

>>660513

>you mean

no i don't

>papal calendar

more like jesuit calendar, am i right fellow orthodox

>>660475

To say that Christ was in any way separated from God is heresy. It's textbook Nestorianism.

>>660527

Kenosis is Nestorianism now?

>>660552

You're confusing nature and will.

>>660290

I can't be bothered to check whether this is fake news or not >>660296 >>660316 , but if it isn't someone better sack him quickly.

Coming from the man who authored the standard book many people use to know the Orthodox Church.

Fix this, brothers.

>>660678

It should be noted that even Patriarchs of Constantinople were deposed for being heretics, so no matter how high one's position in the Church, he can still err.

>>660439

I'll reexamine his writings as well, but I believe he is more firm than that on the filioque.

>homo is wrong in Orthodoxy

<Yes it is true that we Orthodox say that it is wrong but we should examine the reasons behind why it is true that it is wrong

>hey this guy aint orthodox

Seems like Oxford wordplay. He'd probably spend 15 minutes (or more) meandering on and on with flowery language about every little contingency and implication of the purposefully provocative statement used to open the discussion, before arriving at and justifying the Orthodox position. With the result being that he confused a lot of people that can't or won't follow Oxford wordplay, and caused lots of others to sperg out due to his choice to communicate in this manner.

>>660290

He should know better. Homosexuality prohibited because it's a form of idolatry. Pride parades, several multi-million dollar media dedicated to them, public orgies, and LGBT people getting angered from a CEO buying Chick Fil A. Do I need to go any further?

>>660316

>I am not suggesting here that we should bluntly set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching, but we do need to enquire more rigorously into the reasons that lie behind it.

So he's against bluntly setting aside traditional Orthodox teaching and in favor of doing it in a piecemeal fashion right?

>>660771

See >>660352

I'm guessing he started looking at shemale porn

never trusted this guy

England ruins everything they touch.

>Persons of heterosexual orientation have the option of getting married, and so in a positive way they can fulfil their erotic desire with the Church’s blessing through the God-given sacrament of holy matrimony. But homosexuals have no such option. In the words of Vasileios Thermos, “A homosexual subject is called to lead a celibate life without feeling a vocation for it.” Are we right to impose this heavy burden on the homosexual?

Sounds like a sodomite enabler to me.

>>660384

Is there a TL;DR on that pic? I didn't even make it through one tenth before it got my stomach turning.

>>660499

You know there is something seriously wrong when even Satan says "get a room".

Is homo celibacy just an orthodox thing? How does that account for "bisexuals?" Really the whole thing is just sexual perversion. No one is born that way and anyone can get over it with enough commitment. If you're diseased I can understand the need, but if you get over it and you have a loving wife why would the church keep you apart? Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this.

>>661015

The Eternal Anglo is merciless.

>>661190

As far as I understand there are just two things: rightful sexual conduct and sinful sexual conduct.

You have the permission to do the first (but you don't have to), but are prohibited to do the second.

No fornication, no sodomy, no fapping.

If you think you'll only shag other guys, then stop doing that and you're fine.

If you still want to shag and not specifically someone of your sex, then marry someone you love and you're fine too.

>>661202

>>661015

We're not all bad no bulli :'(

>>660290

Saging because thread is low quality. Everyone stop for a second and read his actual statement here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54d0df1ee4b036ef1e44b144/t/5b199e5f03ce64a767c66c7f/1528405608178/%2313%3A14+Foreword.pdf

Read all of it if you want to have a good understanding on what he is saying.

>>660802

It's obviously not idolatry. Sodom and Gomorrah were not torched over idols.

>>665604

They made idols of themselves and their practices

>>666154

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude v.7)